# Two Way Street

Couple of weeks ago I did realize that I can also go into the opposite direction... opposite to reducing FTE density. How about increasing it? What good comes out of that? Well... something quite extraordinary and unbelievable, anti-gravity, sort of. I have never thought that anti-gravity could be possible in any way, but now I have reconsidered my opinion, it might be possible after all.

It all comes down to the mechanism behind gravitational interaction according to TOEBI. Subtle difference of the FTE density between the sides of particles causes gravitational interaction. Slightly greater FTE density next to side facing a gravitating object generates a smaller pressure towards the particle than on the other side, kind of Bernoulli's principle at work at subatomic level. Spinning particle generated flow of FTEPs is the substance at work in this case. Described process is the mechanism behind gravitational interaction according to TOEBI.

Here comes the fun part... it should be possible to generate higher local FTE density with magnets! Just by doing the reverse what was described in the reduced  FTE experiment. We need a setup where FTEP fluxes have the opposite momentum, that in principle should stall the fluxes and generate higher local FTE density which could be used in this new anti-gravity experiment.

Next step is to put an object on top of scale just under the volume having this higher than normal FTE density. What should happen is a slight decrease with the object's observed mass. Amazingly easy experiment don't you think? There is at least one major obstacle, how to stall the fluxes for real? Yes, opposite FTEP flow momenta help but how to stall the fluxes and increase the local FTE density? Magnet generated FTEP fluxes are too bound to their sources a.k.a to ordered electrons i.e. in solid magnets. If we put two repelling magnets close to each other their FTEP fluxes will have the opposite momenta but this just causes the familiar repulsive phenomenon. What we need is at least two unbound FTEP fluxes having the opposite momentum!

Unfortunately, I haven't found out the setup capable of generating these unbound FTEP fluxes, but I'll keep on searching. From the lessons of Bullet Cluster one can say that those FTEP flows or fluxes don't interact too easily...

# Thoughts on LIGO Gravitational Waves Detection

We are all familiar with the detection of gravitational waves by now. One thing which bothers me a bit is the claim that those waves advance with the speed of light. How is that possible? I mean if those merging objects caused ripples into the space-time those ripples should behave like the other detected "ripples", right?

By other ripples I mean for example detected dark matter observations. Based on TOEBI all of those "ripples" are basically volumes with higher FTE density. Like in case of rotating galaxies, galaxy rotation ejects FTEPs towards the outer areas in those galaxies, phenomenon which manifests itself via galaxy rotation curve. Or like in case of galaxy (cluster) collisions, excess FTEPs have momentum of their own and their separation from the "ordinary" matter during the collision explains the observed gravitational lensing observations.

Therefore, I conclude that the detected merger of two black holes occurred in much closer vicinity than 1.3 billion light years. That's because the velocities of those black holes wasn't near the speed of light. One other thing which I conclude is that due to the "fact" of the velocity of gravitational waves LIGO scientists (or more likely used software) must have discarded a lot of potential gravitational wave detections just because the detections' time gap between Livingston and Hanford has been too large!

One thing which puzzles me about my own description is how those waves exactly behave while advancing in FTE. I mean one would think that the velocities of merging black holes would increase towards the end, hence every subsequent FTEP pulse would travel faster than its predecessor FTEP pulse. That would not work... maybe those FTEP pulses originated from the same source can't pass each other? As usually, more thinking is required.

edit: Indeed, most likely those FTEP pulses won't pass each other!

# Tickling The Dragon's Tail

Update 02/28: By using my magnets and Americium I couldn't detect increased gamma ray production rate. The problem was that I couldn't get my Geiger counter inside the setup hence the experiment's casing (including magnets) absorbed pretty much all of the produced gamma rays leaving me only the background radiation level (~20 microSv/h).

As hindsight, I should have also used alpha radiation detector with Americium because that's the main radiation type coming out of it. So, lessons learned... a) I need a bigger setup capable of holding a radiation meter inside it. b) Either alpha radiation detector or a different radioactive material is needed. I think alpha radiation detector is the easier option.

Nevertheless, I have spent too much time of my time on this project, so I have to have a little break. Anyway, I'll have another try later this spring with proper equipment/material.

Ok, let's start the dance! In between 15. and 29. of February I'm conducting a series of new enhanced experiments on the phenomenon of reduced FTE density. There is a three possible outcomes, negative, expected and over the top.

Negative outcome means that I can't measure increased radioactivity decay rate from my Americium-241 sample. If that's the case, I'm done with TOEBI, seriously. Even though, in deep down, I believe I'm onto something fundamental about Nature. Maybe somebody more capable pulls the rabbit out of TOEBI, so to speak.

Expected outcome means significantly increased radioactivity decay rate. Because TOEBI is living its infancy I can't calculate the exact value for the increase, nevertheless, it should be easily detectable. If that's the case, I'll get busy with writing patent applications and finding collaborators for the further studies and applications.

Over the top means that on top of the increased radioactive decay (mainly from Am->Np) rate I'll manage producing various other decay chains, perhaps all the way down to (never-seen-before) proton decay. What would this outcome mean? I have absolutely no idea.

Let's hope for the best!

# Merry Christmas!

I want to wish you all a merry christmas. Also, I want to thank you for your interest and support during the year. Things went pretty good in toebi-wise, I managed to find two pretty simple experiments which can prove that I'm on the right track. My main goal for the next year is to conduct the reduced FTE density experiment in more rigorous way and I already have few ideas how to enhance it (update (01-05-2016) i.e. by putting magnets inside the frame).

I'm also a bit hesitant about the experiment. If TOEBI is really the TOE then reduced FTE density might the long sought great filter. Under that light, is it really wise or necessary to go for it? However, the phenomenon could be used for so many noble purposes, i.e. getting rid of nuclear waste like Berry mentioned or for energy production, so the pros are making the phenomenon so exciting. All in all, my point is that we are living in extremely exciting times!

# One-Way Speed of Light

Another make it or break it experiment for TOEBI is the following one-way speed of light experiment. Measuring the one-way speed of light won't be as trivial as one might initially think, check out the Wikipedia article for more information.

My claim, based on TOEBI, is that the one-way speed of light won't be the same in all inertial frames and to my surprise the following experiment has never been done.

Let's have a train (our inertial frame) moving with a constant velocity $\vec{v}$. Then we set up two light detectors, say 30 meters apart and mark up the spot X in between the detectors having an equal distance (15 m) to the detectors. At spot X we synchronize two atomic clocks and move them next to the detectors with the same, very slow, pace. Detector and atomic clock pair functions so that when light is detected then atomic clock records the time of the event.

Then we set up our light source on spot X and start making events. According to relativity theories those recorded times should be exactly the same, but according to TOEBI that won't be the case. How come? That's because photons move through FTE, in our case, FTE provided by Earth. Inside FTE, photons move at speed $c$ as expected but the problem obviously arises in our experiment. If the train moves at speed $v$ and photons at speed $c$ then photons will reach the rear detector sooner than the front detector, but Einstein disagrees, without any experimental backup.

Synchronization of the atomic clocks was performed as relativity theories would require in order to keep those clocks synchronized. In reality, it would be sufficient to put all those equipment in their proper places before the train leaves a station. Acceleration of the train won't unsync those clocks even though equivalence principle "dictates" so, once again, no proof exists for unsynchronization in case like this one (a.k.a. acceleration happens perpendicularly to a gravitational field).

# Reduced FTE Density

Finally I managed to get some time for explaining the experiment concerning reduced FTE density. I'll draw few clarifying pictures as soon as possible but now let's focus on the qualitative description.

Due to physical spinning phenomenon an electron inside FTE generates  incoming FTEP vortices towards its spinning axis poles and those incoming FTEPs are ejected away from the electron when those vortices encounter. This is the basic mechanism related to electrons in TOEBI. Basically this means that electrons are capable of redistributing FTEPs around them and we can amplify this phenomenon with magnets.

Only possibility (in TOEBI) which prevents hadrons from decaying must be so much greater outer FTE density than the inner FTE density that it compensates the FTEP momentum received by quarks, otherwise those quarks would fly away from each other. How come outer FTE density is able to bound the quarks receiving constant impulse (in form of FTEPs) from each other?

If we have an electron in an environment where its other side has a smaller FTE density than the other side then what would happen? Obviously electron's outward FTEP flux experiences lesser resistance in the direction of smaller FTE density, meaning also that the outward FTEP flux towards the other direction experiences greater resistance. In practice it means that in the direction of greater resistance ejected FTEPs push electron into the opposite direction more than ejected FTEPs on the other side do. Hence greater outer FTE density is capable of preventing hadrons from decaying.

What will happen to hadrons if we manage to reduce outer FTE density enough? They will decay. Surely before noticing anything special about hadrons we should notice some effects concerning larger atoms and that's the target of the experiment.

So we only need a test material surrounded by a bunch of magnets in a specific pattern in order to generate something measurable, right? Not so fast, we have to take into the consideration few other things, like Earth's movement around Sun, the biggest FTE density distributor to the experiment after Earth. Earth itself can be ignored due to the fact that its FTE moves along us, hence provide a static FTE circumstances for the experiment. Naturally phenomena, like external magnetic fields, on Earth can interfere with the experiment.

Blueprint for the experiment is following. We indeed enclose a test material with magnets in certain pattern... Every magnet pair (pair of magnetic poles facing each other) should be N-S pairs in order to maximize the local FTEP redistribution. Putting up the setup might require few trials and errors before it's stable and here's how it should look alike.

At left there's a test material sitting in the middle of the "magnetic walls" and at right it's fully covered. It doesn't need to be a air tight configuration and surely it leaks magnetic field lines but that's not too damaging. The point is that the volume surrounded by magnets is going to experience a reduced FTE density. How's that happening?

Well, because those unpaired electrons inside the magnets, which are responsible for magnet's properties, do the trick. They "suck" in nearby FTEPs through their spinning axis poles and eject them (mainly) on their spinning plane, in our experiment it means following FTEP flow pattern.

But that's not enough. In order to create reduced FTE density we have to something about the FTE provided by Sun. Earth orbits Sun which is the second greatest FTE provider after Earth. Every atom bound to Earth experiences Sun's FTE(Ps) and because we are orbiting Sun it means that the atoms are constantly receiving "new" FTEPs along our journey around Sun. These new FTEPs go through our magnets and maintain the normal FTE density in our volume. That must be eliminated.

One simple method for eliminating those FTEPs would be a stack of magnets (next to our setup) magnetic field pointing to the direction of Earth's orbital movement. Such a stack receives incoming Sun provided FTEPs and ejects those FTEPs away perpendicularly to the magnetic field. The question goes how big stack of magnets is sufficient?

That I must somehow calculate, at least if we aren't selecting the trial & error approach. I'll try to calculate the exact stack size at some point, at latest when I'm trying out the experiment by myself. Nevertheless, trial & error is an option, I just need more N52 grade magnets.

What would be a suitable test material then? Obviously radioactive substances qualify, measured increase with their radioactive decay rate works as the proof of concept. Americium-241 from smoke detectors is the easiest choice for test material, after positive outcome, some heavy elements as well as hydrogen gas are next to go.

What else interferes with the experiment? Naturally anything capable of redistributing FTEPs effectively can interfere, in most cases this means that we have to make sure that there won't be large amounts of electrons (other than those involved with the experiment) next to our setup. Not used magnets and unnecessary objects (i.e. electronic devices, wires, metals, static electricity sources) should be cleared around the setup.

With above instructions we should achieve (based on TOEBI) increased radioactivity of Americium-241 and if that happens the sky's the limit.

# That's It

I have to admit... I don't have enough time and knowledge for developing TOEBI properly, unfortunately. This situation has eaten up my motivation to the point which has reduced even more the time spent on TOEBI development, nice vicious circle... And I don't see any better circumstances in near future, hence I give up, at least for now. You can read about the latest efforts from Theory of Everything by Illusion 2.0.

But I won't abandon TOEBI, I just concentrate on more fruitful aspects of it, for example on experiments. Now you ask how can I conduct experiments if I can't first calculate the predictions?  Well, there is couple of experiments which are doable and TOEBI gives exciting predictions about the outcomes. The first experiment is about to happen in November and I'll write about it in advance, most likely in October.

At least the first experiment won't require very much time nor material. I just need to make few thought experiments and ethical thinking first.

# Heureka!

Heureka indeed... The missing piece of the puzzle. But this time, I want to proceed differently. Now I can qualitatively explain the behaviour of a magnetic fields and phenomena related to them, but I want more. This more means certain corrections to TOEBI but the gain makes it worthwhile, we'll have the complete toolset for every particle related calculation.

What's going to happen?

1. I'll stop writing this blog until I have finished my paper and I don't have any idea for how long that will take. Surely I'll answer your questions in comments but that's all.
2. The paper will satisfy scientific requirements, hence it should be peer reviewed and published. I'll ask your feedback before submitting the paper.
3. TOEBI 2.0 will be launched.

That's all folks!

# TOEBI 3 Years Old

Once again another year has gone... it's time to recap some of the highlights from the past year. At first, a lot has happened! I personally have learned a lot about different phenomena and mathematics in physics. Also, I have had the pleasure to enjoy feedback from professional physicists like Berry and Yop. Both of these advances have guided TOEBI into more correct form which means, on the other hand, that some of the old ideas were dropped, i.e. the attempt to explain magnetic fields by static electron spinning vectors.

What is the current situation? According to Berry, there is no point for me to continue because I have failed so many times in my attempts to deliver something out of TOEBI. I can understand his point, but the thing which I don't understand, is what other reasonable underlying explanations there can be for Nature and its phenomena other than concrete, spherical, spinning objects, under the hoods of quantum mechanics and relativity? And being satisfied with the mainstream physics theories' depth looks like a failure to me. I believe we can do much better.

What can I do and what I'll have to do? To be more convincing, I need to go back to basics, FTEP dynamics it is. By creating a compact toolset from existing TOEBI principles which can be used in explaining and calculating every possible physical phenomena should do the trick. Is it doable? It should be if I'm right about the underlying reality of Nature. Can I do it? That's another question...

...But at least I'm f**king trying!!! Yuri Milner and other billionaires, few million euros would speed up the process considerably 😉

# Spinning Vectors Unleashed

For me, getting rid of the image of a static spinning vector has been a very long process. Initially I have thought that there would be no "quick" mechanism for changing a spinning vector orientation. Then external challenges thrown in by real physicists enforced me to adopt the possibility that maybe those spinning vectors actually change their orientation as everyday business.

But still I was thinking that maybe this spinning vector orientation changing business concerned only those free particles, not those numerous electrons generating a magnetic fields. Now I have to admit, static spinning vectors in magnetic poles just won't work. So, back to the drawing board...

Ok then, let's say that those electron spinning vectors (SVs) in a magnetic pole are constantly changing their orientation, does it make things work more correctly? And how are those SVs changing in a magnetic field, do they change in an unified manner? Let's start with the assumption that electron SVs in a magnet change their orientation in a plane (perpendicular to magnetic field lines) by spinning into the same direction.

If we have a cylinder shaped magnet having N at the other end and S at the other, what can we say based on the previous assumption?

In picture above we have a magnetic pole seen above having a bunch of electron SVs which are spinning counter-clockwise. Underneath those SVs there is other layers having the same SV spinning pattern. Those SVs precess at the same rate due to the similar similar crystal structure and involved atoms in the magnet (Why exactly? Needs further clarification). If we turned our magnet upside down we would see that those SVs are spinning in clockwise manner.

At this point, our test particle (electron) enters the stage. What would happen to it if we put it above the magnetic pole? It would be surrounded by FTEP fluxes ejected by electrons in the pole and FTEPs ejected from those FTEP fluxes would have the additional angular momentum. Let's take a closer look...

Which direction our test particle's SV would start to precess? It precesses because electron tends to change its SV orientation antiparallel to those of other nearby unpaired electrons. If it precesses counterclockwise it would precess to the same direction than the unpaired electrons in the magnet and just like in case of two magnetic poles that would result attractive force between them. Opposite precession direction would result repulsive force between the electron and the magnet. I'll explain the exact mechanism in future FTEP Dynamics paper update.

In the next experiment we shoot an electron with velocity $\vec v$ perpendicular into to our inhomogeneous magnetic field.

Red arrows mean the trajectory of the electron and blue arrows its precession direction. Why the electron deflects to the right? Simply because the angular momentum of the FTEP fluxes from the magnet's electrons. Those FTEP fluxes push the electron constantly to the right and above a large enough magnet the electron would start making a circle (guiding center).

According to the contemporary physics conventions electron's deflection to the right means that the magnetic field points away from us which means that we are looking at the south pole here in our example. Because of the opposite precession directions the electron would experience repulsive force pushing it towards us (spin up).

After the electron leaves the magnetic field, as it does in our example, it still has its precession (conservation of angular momentum). So if we measure the electron spin again in another magnetic field (having the same orientation) the outcome would be the same, spin up. Having two "entangled" electrons and randomly orientated magnetic fields (perpendicular to electrons' trajectories) while measuring electron spins from TOEBI's point of view should be a very interesting topic. Can TOEBI reproduce quantum mechanical results?

How the velocity of electron affects its behaviour in a magnetic field? Obviously its velocity perpendicular to a magnetic field affects the amount of deflecting (to the right in our example) FTEPs encountered by it. In other words, particle's velocity perpendicular to a magnetic field and the force deflecting (to the right in our example) particle has the linear dependency. However, particle's velocity doesn't affect the deflection (anti)parallel to a magnetic field because the amount of incoming FTEPs (experienced by particle) stays the same.

I'll enhance this post later or make a new one to include i.e. proton and positron.